memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews
Uphold Boothby I have carried out a full reorganization and expansion on this article to bring it up with today's standard's and I think it is now complete. A good article on another minor character with lots of properly cited background information and apocryphal mentions. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:19, April 26, 2015 (UTC) *'Support'. Seems pretty complete. StalwartUK 23:01, April 26, 2015 (UTC) *'Support'. Agreed...--Sennim (talk) 22:10, May 4, 2015 (UTC) *'Support'. - 04:31, May 6, 2015 (UTC) Star Trek design patents This one is due to its age ready for a reappraisal. That being said, it is to this date one of the finest MA-articles I've ever laid eyes upon, as old as it is. Very few revisions have been made since the earliest days of MA , but few were required. In my view, the sublime organization and scope of the article are still beyond par, and it still deserves to be upheld as a FA...--Sennim (talk) 22:42, May 4, 2015 (UTC) *'Support': An interesting article. It appears complete and providing there are no further patents to be added, I am happy to support it's continued status as an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:59, May 4, 2015 (UTC) And you know what, virtually none of it was mine, but from an earlier contributor...When I came upon this article, I was mightily impressed by the way that ancient archivist organized the article. (btw, as far as I could ascertain, Paramount ceased going for patents after TNG-S1, or in other words 1987)--Sennim (talk) 23:13, May 4, 2015 (UTC) *'Support'. - 04:31, May 6, 2015 (UTC) Remove Force field This article, while thorough from an in-universe perspective, is lacking any background/production information (of which I am sure there is plenty). Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go through all my sources to add it at the moment so I propose that the article's FA status be removed pending future any improvements that can be made to it. In addition to BG info, I am sure there is a host of apocryphal information on force fields and I just feel that this article is in no way 100% complete and so shouldn't be an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:16, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :I'm inclined to say that this meets the criteria, since without knowing for sure how much, or the quality of, any information that might be missing, I really can't say that this isn't "as complete as possible". That said, I'm not opposing this as yet, but I would rather not remove a FA because of "what might be". - 05:06, April 24, 2015 (UTC) That's a fair comment, Archduk3. If I get some spare time over the weekend, I'll traul through my references and make a few scribbled notes for the talk page of the article. I'm certain I've seen BG info relating to force fields though. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:47, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ::Undecided; Truth to be told, I'm inclined to support TrekFan's position for removal. While Duke is absolutely right in his assessment that lack of info in itself is no reason for refusing a FA status as per the criteria, it should also be noted that these criteria were constituted at the beginning of MA when it was primarily intended to be an in-universe POV site. But as everything else, MA has evolved over time, most notably to have production POV info included as BG-info. As a consequence, perusing over the new FA articles added over the last five years, a BG and an aprocrypha section, no matter how trivial, was almost obligatory to have been included; The bar, while not formally but certainly implicitly, has been raised considerably since those early days so to speak...Sennim (talk) 21:59, May 4, 2015 (UTC)